Science Cannot Replace Religion

[Skippy]

Three! Three! Three gods in one! is breath mint theology.

Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo "Poenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum" omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit. Yaweh wants ignorance, suffering, blood, dead babies, and your money. You go squat in mud puddles and lash your back with broken glass-studded whips. The rest of us will stand tall and create the future.

You know, reading only your posts in the Hypography forums one would think you have no clue at all. But you do come off better when viewing your website.

[Pyrotex]

Science Cannot Replace Religion.

...Science does not speak out about the questions that are of fundamental importance for the human spirit, namely, right and wrong. Religion finds the answers to these questions

...A false ...science guides humans and their neighbors to the desperation of suicide and to ...ethical bankruptcy. Whereas the real religion and science helps humans to face and solve their daily problems.

...Real science and religion support each other. The misleading disagreement always arises from false scientific or religious assumptions and interpretations.

...Our life and world has been designed exactly and accurately just like this, so that we can make a free choice between faith and atheism. We could not make this free choice if we could prove the existence of God or some higher force using some scientific procedure.

...Philosophy without God is like a thermometer with an unlocked calibration point. ...but religious philosophy leads the way to eternal survival like a lighthouse on a granite base.

...I would be glad to get your feedback and comments how to improve this column.

 

Hello, Antti.

quite an impressive essay. You cover a lot of ground here. And you write very well. This would make a very good sermon in some churches. It IS a sermon. Do you have aspirations to go into the ministry? I will try to give you my reactions and opinions, the opinions of an old man who once had such aspirations and studied to be a preacher, but who made a decision in his late twenties to study science instead. You see, I have been on both sides of this philosophical divide.

 

The first thing I see is that you describe what "science" IS or claims to be. But what you have given is really a description of what science looks like through the eyes of a "preacher" who neither approves of or understands science.

 

In the art of rhetoric (persuasive speaking) this is known as the Strawman Fallacy. You describe a thing you call "science" and you describe its shortcomings, and its failures and its faults. But this thing you describe is not <SCIENCE>, the real McCoy, but a characature, a cartoon, a stick-figure. The thing you describe is indeed repulsive philosophically, and certainly sounds like something I should avoid. What you describe as "science" is careless, without divine purpose, stupid, sloppy and shabby. But you do not accurately represent the intentions, the ambitions, the purposes, the driving force of real <SCIENCE> as it is really practiced.

 

Real <SCIENCE> has no ambition to help people in their daily lives. But that is not a fault. Real <SCIENCE> aims to understand the real World. Period. If it helps somebody invent a better can-opener and improve lives, well, that's nice. But that is not what real <SCIENCE> is after.

 

Real <SCIENCE> and Religion do NOT support each other. That is the CORE problem here, don't you see? They just don't and this gives a lot of people a bad case of heartburn. The solution offered is to "change" science so it DOES agree with Religion and then everything would be lovely and hunky-dory. The trouble is, if you did that, you would destroy real <SCIENCE>. It would become just a neglected wing of Religion and slowly fade away. This has been tried before, remember? We call it The Dark Ages.

 

What is the purpose of Religion? To find the Truth? Well, some folks claim it is, but they don't seem to really find much of it. The real purpose of Religion can be seen by observing how Religion works, day in, day out. Religion provides comfort, support and encouragement. These are spiritual needs. And yes, they are very important. Science doesn't address them, but that doesn't make science wrong or mis-directed. Math doesn't address them either. Art and music address them. Chemistry doesn't. Medicine does, to a certain extent (the comfort part) but not the other parts.

 

Your essay makes for a fine sermon. It comforts. It gives people the encouragement that they are on the right path, and that to "be happy" they just have to understand a few easy spiritual rules. They don't have to worry about that big bad world out there with its atheists and scientists and bugabears. Just circle the wagons and protect the women and kids, and keep the bad thoughts out. That's comforting.

 

Atheists and scientists aren't out to prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, the two groups aren't related at all. Atheists are often very moral, law-abiding folks. They just can't help but see Religion as, well, "play-pretend". And scientists are just trying to understand the World without resorting to supernatural explanations (which don't really explain anything).

 

So, your essay would no doubt go over well in some churches. The "pulpit logic" you use is of a high quality, and is just the sort of stuff that many Christians want to hear. It will make sense to them, because they deeply want it to make sense. They will trust your sincerity and your authenticity. They will be comforted.

 

However, do not expect people who have spent their lives developing the mental discipline of analytical logic, observation and analysis to be persuaded. It's not because they are bad people, or even because they don't understand what you're saying. They have a different calling than you do. And it is not for you to say that their calling is inferior to your own.

 

Good luck.

[Boerseun]

Excellent post, Pyro!

 

Religion criticising Science (or vice versa) is as relevant as a heart surgeon criticising an apple farmer. They operate in such vastly different realms, that the one basically has nothing to say about the other.

 

My personal view regarding religion is that it's a mass delusion, but that's not my scientific take on the matter, if you get what I'm saying. From a scientific point of view, it might be interesting to study the dynamics of large populations buying wholesale into a fairytale - but the fairytale itself could not be subject to scientific probing, therefore rendering it totally outside the realm of science. Science also can't say that there never was talking, fire-breathing, flying dragons. Science can only say that under general scientific rules and laws, a talking dragon is extremely improbable. And the same with Christianity, or the mass-delusion of your choice. Science can only say that based on what we do know, (in the face of a complete lack of relevent evidence) it is extremely improbable that a human could come to life after three days of death without suffering extreme brain damage (at the very least). It is also highly unlikely that a human body is bouyant enough to 'walk on water'. It is extremely unlikely that a human could be swallowed whole by a whale, and be regurgitated intact after a few days.

 

These incidents are all improbable and unlikely, because there's no evidence. We can, however, take a thousand volunteers and have them swallowed by a thousand whales and figure out the statistical probability (after they've signed comprehensive indemnity forms, of course) of surviving such an ordeal. But beyond that, science can't say much more. Religion can't say anything good about science, because believers are presented with a dogmatic approach to physical reality. Things are the way they are because God made it so. End of story. So, if science presents an alternative viewpoint, this is seen as a fundamental attack on the core values of their physical reality, whilst actually being a true's Bob, honest attempt at understanding the world from a non-dogmatic, reality-driven point of view. If religion falls by the wayside as collateral damage in this war against ignorance, well, so be it.

[Tormod]

The whold damn universe is improbable. It doesn't mean we're not here, not does it mean that it was created by anyone.

[Pyrotex]

The whold damn universe is improbable. It doesn't mean we're not here, not does it mean that it was created by anyone.

Actually, the probability of this Universe existing is... [drum roll] ...

100%.

It exists.

Here we are.

Fait accompli.

Profundus carborundum est.

Pass the jug.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Antti:

God brings unity and a calibration point to philosophy and ethics. Philosophy cannot attain equality between all humans without the concept of one God or Creator. Only this concept and idea can make all of us brothers and sisters with equal human rights.

I disagree. However, I do think that this is the central issue. You're trying to identify what it means to be human and then you subsume all of us within the category of a one god or creator as though we were the children of that creator. Assuming there is a God, we are all its children only in the sense that the sidewalk I poured last summer is one of my children.

 

The truth is we all belong to the species of Man, but not all of us behave in a human way. I for one do not consider all others of my species to be my brother or sister. Some choose to be human, some don't. I recognize affiliation only with those that are human. The rest are not welcome in my house.

 

Of course, we're left with the problem of identifying what it means to be 'human' and this issue is ignored for all practical purposes across the board by every religion and by every government.

 

We're the only species that chooses the identity that we become. And the most profound need we have is a moral code to guide us in the development of that identity.

 

I assume that you believe morality to be something we discover in the Bible.

 

But in my mind, morality is something to be discovered as the end result of a logical, non-contradictory set of identifications about our own nature and what the requirements of our survival dictate.

 

Morality needs to be understood because it's a characteristic of all members of the species of Man.

 

In the sense that the discovery of morality should be considered a rational pursuit using reason, this issue needs to be covered in this forum. Science has abdicated Morality long enough.

 

So, far from being something outside the realm of science, it's time science discovered what it means to be human.

[Pyrotex]

...The truth is we all belong to the species of Man, but not all of us behave in a human way. ....We're the only species that chooses the identity that we become. And the most profound need we have is a moral code to guide us in the development of that identity.

...In the sense that the discovery of morality should be considered a rational pursuit using reason, this issue needs to be covered in this forum. Science has abdicated Morality long enough....it's time science discovered what it means to be human.

Amen. Tell it like it is, brother. Rat on. Rat on. :cup:

[CerebralEcstasy]

Antti,

 

When a believing person looks at scientific fact they are even moreso convinced of God's existence. However, when an atheist looks at the same evidence they see something completely different.

 

Those who don't share a belief in God usually look at those who do with incredulity, simply because they can't believe we could be so gullible.

 

Fortunately this is a two-edged sword, as it takes as much faith in logical thought and evolution, as it does to have faith that God sent his only begotten son.

 

With that being said, if the creator of the universe does not feel it necessary to convince each and every person of his supremacy, who are we to try to convince them of it. There are clearly written passages in the bible that talk about such ones.

 

2 Cor. 4:4 states : 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

 

Acts 13:48 also states that those rightly disposed for eternal life, were fact believers.

 

48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

 

So it matters not what the Christians think, nor what the Atheists think, but rather what God thinks.

[Edella]

...it takes as much faith in logical thought ... as it does to have faith that God sent his only begotten son.

 

Quite a claim,but fair enough.Do you mean formal logic,or informal?Perhaps you are referring to Boolean logic or modal Logic,I don't know.The scope of logic is broad.Please clarify what you mean by "logical thought"and then show that faith is an integral part.

[IDMclean]

This is a false statment.

[ughaibu]

It certainly is, it doesn't state anything.

[IDMclean]

Ughaibu made a false statement.

 

Examine the Question closely, You took faith in that the statement was true in that it was false. However if it is true then it must be false correct?

 

Anyway, my point, however random it may seem is that Logic is a fickle creature. We can only assume things to be true, based on our limited capabilities to observe. We must have faith that the universe continues without us, and that people will be good to one another. Even in science there is no truth, only seemingly correct assumitions. Which stay as such until proven wrong. Or seemingly false assumetions that stay as such until proven right. Either way you have to have faith that the a given statement is sound, or not, either way you have to have faith. (Paradoxical statements abound! The circles make me dizzy)

 

I hope I confounded someone other than myself :confused:

-The Clown

[ughaibu]

Self referential paradoxes aren't statements.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

KirkGregoryKzuhai:

Other religions may follow an idol, or a prophet, or a wise man or woman, but Jesus Christ is the son of God and THE ONLY PATH TO GOD AND SALVATION.

And He watches this stuff, so rest assured you've got a ticket through the pearly gates. I sure hope you won't be disappointed.

And don't worry about me, I've got a lightning rod on top of the house.

[InfiniteNow]

No need for a lightening rod here... Nonsense can't kill, just annoy. :)

 

 

Anyway, I tried a similar line to this last night while in the bar. I told this girl that I was the only man for her, and that no other male could please her or take care of her like I could. Fortunately for me, she was the religious type and fell for it... hook, line, and sinker.

 

 

:warped:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

InfiniteNow:

Anyway, I tried a similar line to this last night while in the bar. I told this girl that I was the only man for her, and that no other male could please her or take care of her like I could. Fortunately for me, she was the religious type and fell for it... hook, line, and sinker

Oh God. A fisher of women. They do make life worth living, don't they. :warped:

[GAHD]

I'm only going to answer the headline:

 

Science should not replace religion. SCience is a completely different thing than relgion.

Just stop doing stuff because there's a reallllllly big imaginary friend that you, either as an adult or as a child /forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif beleive exists.

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

:D